The Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering whether facilities that recycle plastic chemically should be held to the same strict air pollution standards as incinerators.
The possible change is alarming environmental advocates who say it would lead to more dangerous pollution spewing into communities, with fewer or no checks at the federal level. The plastics industry disputes that, saying it would clear up confusion while still controlling
emissions.
The world is pumping millions of tons of plastic pollution into the environment every year. While dozens of countries and many environmental groups have urged caps on production, industry and several big oil-producing countries have resisted, arguing instead for improvements in reuse and recycling.
Chemical recycling uses heat or chemicals to break down plastics. The main method, a process known as pyrolysis, has long been regulated as incineration by the Clean Air Act. The EPA limits emissions from incinerators of nine air pollutants, including toxic particulates, heavy metals and dioxins.
The agency says a potential new rule could instead recognize pyrolysis as manufacturing.
The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, has long argued for such a change.
“The definition of incineration is to destroy it, right? You’re literally trying to make it go away,” said Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, who leads ACC’s plastics advocacy. “That’s not what they’re doing here. They are trying to preserve it and recover the materials, which is recycling, which is manufacturing.”
Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator who now heads up Beyond Plastics, opposes what she said would be a “much weaker level of environmental protection.”
“Chemical recycling companies know that if they want to operate, they need to get this essential Clean Air Act permit and they don’t like it,” she said. “They have spent decades trying to convince EPA to change the rules of the game. Republication and Democratic administrations have declined to do this. But they have hit the jackpot with the Trump administration.”
The EPA regulates pyrolysis under section 129 of the act, which reduces air pollution from four categories of solid waste incineration units. The agency told The Associated Press that a final rule in 2005 that included “pyrolysis/combustion units” under that section was vague and caused confusion for the industry.
EPA said it's taking public comment for a potential rule that could recognize pyrolysis as manufacturing under a different section, 111, of the Clean Air Act.
John Walke, who leads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s national clean air advocacy, said Section 111 doesn't regulate as many pollutants as 129. He also argued that EPA's plan is skipping crucial steps in a lengthy, required rulemaking process.
Walke also said the EPA move would amount to the immediate deregulation of these facilities under the act. He said it would take several years to follow the legal process to regulate the industry under another section, leaving a gap where no federal emissions standards would apply.
“You could have a facility that was controlled on a Monday, preventing those hazardous air pollutants from being emitted into the atmosphere, and on Tuesday, the facility would have legal permission to turn off installed pollution controls to allow the unlimited release of hazardous air pollution into the same community that was better protected on Monday,” he said. “Why would they do that? Why would they turn off an installed pollution control device? Because it costs money to operate them.”
Eisenberg disputed that. He said other sections of the Clean Air Act would still apply, and facilities get state permits, so the emissions would still be controlled and surrounding communities would be safe. They are “so heavily regulated,” Eisenberg said.
More than 90% of plastics aren't recycled, according to the American Chemistry Council. It promises that chemical, or advanced, recycling can change that. As a complement to traditional mechanical recycling, chemical recycling can help dramatically reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills while generating a diverse range of products, the ACC says.
The process breaks plastics down into liquid and gas to produce an oil-like mixture or basic chemicals, that can be used to make new plastics or fuels. It's like “unbaking a cake,” Eisenberg said.
Environmental groups say advanced recycling is waste disposal, not recycling, and a distraction from real solutions like producing and using less plastic.
There are six pyrolysis plants, operating in Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Indiana and Georgia, plus one under construction in Arizona and another in West Virginia, and a small test project in Maryland, according to the American Chemistry Council. The ACC has been lobbying states and Congress to pass laws to regulate chemical recycling as manufacturing. Twenty-five states now do, and legislation is pending in Congress.
Despite that legislative success, Eisenberg said the number of proposals to build these plants has dwindled in recent years, in part because of the permitting process.
“I often ask people to take a step back,” he said. “Do you want more recycling? If the answer is yes, then we should do what we can to make sure that you can bring more recycling online.”
Eisenberg said they've made clear to the Trump administration that revising the Clean Air Act is a priority. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin toured ExxonMobil's Baytown, Texas, facility to see chemical recycling in person last year.
In March, the EPA published a notice requesting comment on a proposed rule to consolidate regulations for another type of incinerator, with a small section soliciting comment on removing the reference to pyrolysis. The EPA mentioned it at the end of its press release on air curtain incinerators, too.
Enck said it was a bombshell paragraph, buried in a rulemaking notice. The EPA dismissed the criticism, highlighting the press release.
At a public hearing last week, many people urged the EPA to keep pyrolysis units regulated as incinerators, including about a dozen speakers from the nonprofit Moms Clean Air Force. Kiya Stanford, the group's Georgia state organizer, said in her testimony that changing it “feels like a move to prioritize polluters over people,” offering the plastics industry a cheap way to make waste disappear from sight by spewing it into the air as toxic pollution.
The agency proposed a similar change in 2020, during President Donald Trump's first term. The Biden administration withdrew the proposed modification.
Walke said that if the EPA finalizes the rollback now, the NRDC would plan to challenge it in court.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
